State v. Williams

── State v. Williams ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General No. 127,617 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSIAH DESMOND WILLIAMS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The "hemp products" exception to the definition of Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act does not apply to any "liquids, solids or gases . . . for use in vaporizing devices" that contain THC, even in an amount less than 0.3%. See K.S.A. 21-5706(b)(7); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 65-4105(h); K.S.A. 2-3901(b)(4); K.S.A. 2-3908(a)(1)(E). 2. When a defendant is charged with unlawful possession of THC pursuant to K.S.A. 21-5706(b)(7), with THC defined as a Schedule I controlled substance under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 65-4105(h), the State is not required to prove that the THC did not meet an exception to the definition of THC as a Schedule I controlled substance in the Commercial Industrial Hemp Act under K.S.A. 2-3901 or K.S.A. 2-3908. Appeal from Johnson District Court; MICHAEL P. JOYCE, judge. Oral argument held October 14, 2025. Opinion filed May 15, 2026. Affirmed. Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. 1  Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before HURST, P.J., GARDNER and BOLTON FLEMING, JJ. HURST, J.: The State charged Josiah Desmond Williams with one count of possession of a controlled substance after having two prior convictions for a liquid cartridge that contained tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia based on evidence discovered in his car after a routine traffic stop. Williams moved to suppress the evidence alleging the sheriff's deputy unlawfully extended the traffic stop. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. A jury found Williams guilty of both offenses, and Williams now appeals, arguing three issues. First, Williams contends that the district court erred in denying his suppression motion and, second, Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by claiming the State failed to prove that the THC did not meet an exception to the statute prohibiting the possession of THC. Relatedly, for his third issue, Williams argues the court should have provided a jury instruction that the State must show Williams "possessed an amount of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration equal to or more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis." Regarding Williams' suppression motion, the district court did not err in finding the deputy had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on the combination of the strong air freshener, existence of black film canisters, and, most importantly, Williams' action in hiding the film canisters when the deputy was not present. With respect to Williams' second issue, the "hemp products" exception in the Commercial Industrial Hemp Act does not apply to liquid cartridges containing THC for use in vaporizing devices and even if it does—Williams' failure to assert the exception at trial makes his 2 appeal unavailing. Finally, the jury instruction related to the THC concentration was not legally appropriate and thus the district court did not err in refusing its use. The district court is therefore affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 30, 2021, a Johnson County Sheriff's deputy saw a vehicle on Highway K-10 with a temporary tag that appeared to be expired and, according to the deputy, was faded to be "barely visible." The deputy stopped the vehi